Wife Only Cited to a Family Code Provision Relating to Enforcement of an Existing Child Support Order, Not a Modification Situation. In Bennett v. Foss, Case Nos. A137452/A138342 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife did obtain reversal of a child support modification order on appeal. However, in the lower court, […]
Statutory Language Allows Both To Be Imposed. The family law judge in Marriage of O’Connell, Case No. G047362 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 22, 2014) (unpublished) imposed $62,903 in sanctions as well as awarded one-half of undisclosed financial accounts in favor of wife and against husband under Family Code section 1101(g). Husband argued
However, Open Question Remains—Need to File Motion for Further Response/Evidentiary Preclusion As Predicate—Not Decided. Marriage of Crawford, Case No. A138156 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2014) (unpublished) affirmed a trial court’s denial of awarding sanctions against an ex-husband under Family Code section 2107, which allows a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees
However, Error Was Not Prejudicial In Nature. In Marriage of Bareket & Marcus, Case No. A136067 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife was miffed when a lower court denied her request for Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees on the eve of a trial. On appeal, the reviewing court agreed
Divorce Case Here Was a “Belizian” To-Do. Marriage of Wade, Case No. B230601 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 18, 2014) (unpublished) was a Belizian-flavored dissolution proceeding: ex-wife and her son, from Belize, were granted asylum from the U.S.; she met and married her ex-husband, also from Belize, in the U.S.; and husband helped
By Time of Ruling, Both Parties Had Somewhat Equal Assets. Ex-wife obviously was upset in Laughman v. Laughman, Case No. B245837 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 10, 2014) (unpublished) because the lower court only ordered ex-husband to pay needs-based fees of $25,000 even though she requested more than $200,000 in fees. The
Case Illustrates the High Price of Divorce. Not so much for its discussion of some needs-based fee orders, Marriage of Schulman, Case No. D063341 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 21, 2014) (unpublished) was revealing in the high price of divorce: ex-husband spent $76,000 in fees (resorting to defending himself with some family law
Evidence That Party With Greater Resources Incurred Greater Fees Should Be Taken Into Account, But Did Not Matter Here. Marriage of Maxwell, Case No. F065915 (5th Dist. Jan. 30, 2014) (unpublished) involves a divorce in which wife was heiress with large income from a trust (disposable income of $43,000 per month), and husband
This One Was a True Marital Imbroglio—Doesn’t Look Like Anyone “Won.” Marriage of Aitchison, Case No. A134450 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 24, 2014) (unpublished), is a monument to the fees and costs that can be spent in a volatile dissolution matter. Here is the beginning of this opinion: “‘[T]he parties appear in
Substance Over Form Prevailed in this One. Marriage of Sharples, Case No. E056941 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 22, 2014) (published) is a case where a lower court denied a wife’s needs-based request for provisional attorney’s fees and costs (with husband having a definably bigger cash flow/asset advantage) because she did not file
